OpenAI and wiki.myamens.com the White House have accused DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little option under intellectual property and contract law.
- OpenAI's terms of usage may use but are largely unenforceable, they state.
Today, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something comparable to theft.

In a flurry of press statements, they said the Chinese upstart had bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with inquiries and hoovered up the resulting information trove to rapidly and inexpensively train a model that's now nearly as excellent.

The Trump administration's top AI czar said this training procedure, called "distilling," to intellectual home theft. OpenAI, on the other hand, informed Business Insider and other outlets that it's investigating whether "DeepSeek might have inappropriately distilled our designs."

OpenAI is not saying whether the company plans to pursue legal action, rather assuring what a spokesperson described "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to secure our innovation."

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you stole our material" premises, much like the grounds OpenAI was itself took legal action against on in a continuous copyright claim filed in 2023 by The New York Times and other news outlets?

BI posed this question to professionals in technology law, who stated difficult DeepSeek in the courts would be an uphill struggle for OpenAI now that the content-appropriation shoe is on the other foot.

OpenAI would have a tough time showing a copyright or copyright claim, these lawyers stated.

"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - meaning the responses it generates in reaction to queries - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School said.

That's due to the fact that it's unclear whether the responses ChatGPT spits out certify as "imagination," he said.

"There's a teaching that says creative expression is copyrightable, but realities and ideas are not," Kortz, who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, said.

"There's a huge concern in intellectual home law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute creative expression or if they are always unguarded realities," he included.

Could OpenAI roll those dice anyhow and declare that its outputs are secured?

That's unlikely, the lawyers said.

OpenAI is currently on the record in The New york city Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is an allowed "fair use" exception to copyright protection.

If they do a 180 and tell DeepSeek that training is not a fair usage, "that might come back to sort of bite them," Kortz said. "DeepSeek could say, 'Hey, weren't you simply saying that training is fair usage?'"

There may be a difference in between the Times and DeepSeek cases, Kortz added.

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news short articles into a design" - as the Times accuses OpenAI of doing - "than it is to turn outputs of a design into another model," as DeepSeek is stated to have actually done, Kortz stated.

"But this still puts OpenAI in a pretty tricky circumstance with regard to the line it's been toeing relating to fair usage," he added.

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is most likely

A breach-of-contract suit is much likelier than an IP-based claim, though it comes with its own set of issues, said Anupam Chander, who teaches innovation law at Georgetown University.

Related stories

The terms of service for Big Tech chatbots like those established by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid using their material as training fodder for a competing AI model.

"So maybe that's the suit you may possibly bring - a contract-based claim, not an IP-based claim," Chander stated.

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' however that you gained from my design to do something that you were not permitted to do under our contract."

There may be a drawback, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's regards to service require that many claims be fixed through arbitration, not lawsuits. There's an exception for claims "to stop unapproved usage or abuse of the Services or copyright infringement or misappropriation."

There's a larger hitch, though, experts stated.

"You must understand that the brilliant scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of use are most likely unenforceable," Chander stated. He was referring to a January 10 paper, "The Mirage of Artificial Intelligence Terms of Use Restrictions," by Stanford Law's Mark A. Lemley and Peter Henderson of Princeton University's Center for Information Technology Policy.

To date, "no model creator has in fact attempted to enforce these terms with monetary penalties or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is likely for excellent reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it adds. That's in part since model outputs "are mostly not copyrightable" and since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal limited option," it says.

"I think they are most likely unenforceable," Lemley told BI of OpenAI's regards to service, "because DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts typically will not enforce contracts not to compete in the absence of an IP right that would avoid that competitors."

Lawsuits in between celebrations in various nations, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are constantly difficult, Kortz stated.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above obstacles and won a judgment from an US court or arbitrator, "in order to get DeepSeek to turn over money or stop doing what it's doing, the enforcement would come down to the Chinese legal system," he stated.

Here, OpenAI would be at the grace of another exceptionally complicated area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of specific and corporate rights and nationwide sovereignty - that extends back to before the starting of the US.

"So this is, a long, complicated, laden procedure," Kortz added.

Could OpenAI have secured itself better from a distilling incursion?

"They could have utilized technical procedures to block repetitive access to their website," Lemley said. "But doing so would likewise disrupt regular clients."

He included: "I don't believe they could, or should, have a legitimate legal claim versus the searching of uncopyrightable info from a public website."

Representatives for DeepSeek did not immediately react to an ask for comment.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize approaches, including what's understood as distillation, to attempt to duplicate sophisticated U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, informed BI in an emailed statement.